3rd Down: Bears Can't Get Off the Field
There have been a lot of stories written this season about what is wrong with the Chicago Bears, and a lot of statistical looks at different facets of the team. And honestly, you can just about look in any direction and find something that needs improvement.
While I'm not a proponent of criticizing coaches and management (simply because they are the professionals, and I am just an armchair QB), sometimes there are things that really stand out during the course of the game. Today, we get a Windy City Gridiron exclusive look at the Chicago Bears defense; specifically, the inability to get off the field on 3rd downs. Follow me inside for the analysis.
First off, a blanket look at the Bears defense on 3rd downs:
Opponents have converted 59/138 3rd down attempts this year, or 42.8%. This number could be significantly worse, considering Cleveland was only 1/11 on 3rd downs against the Bears.
But, let's take a closer look at the numbers, first by quarters of the game.
1st Quarter: 20/36 converted, or 55.5%
2nd Quarter: 17/32 (53.1%)
3rd Quarter: 8/29 (27.6%)
4th Quarter: 16/41 (39.0%)
Those numbers show that the Bears perform much better in the second half of football games, especially in the 3rd quarter. We have seen the team get blasted for the lack of 2nd half adjustments, but if you just look at how the defense is performing during crucial 3rd down plays, it looks like we are improving in at least that department.
However, seeing the percentage increase from 27.6% to 39.0% from the 3rd to the 4th quarter does say something about losing momentum towards the end of the game.
Next, let's look at yards-to-go on 3rd down for our opponents.
1-2 yards: 13/24 converted, or 54.2%
3-5 yards: 19/43 (44.2%)
6-9 yards: 17/34 (50.0%)
10+ yards: 12/37 (32.4%)
The short yardage situations will always be tough for defenses who are not good at stopping the run, and Chicago is 23rd in the league in rushing yards per game. So, to see over 54% of short yardage situations converted against us is no surprise.
The scary numbers, however, start entering the picture during passing situations. Yes, the Bears giving up a 50% conversion rate on 3rd and 6-9 yards is not good at all, but when you see that teams are converting almost a third of attempts over 10 yards... that is downright pitiful.
This is a direct reflection of having a non-effective pass rush that allows for routes to develop down the field. And no matter how talented defensive backs are (I would say ours is average at best), eventually, the WRs will get open if given enough time.
I also looked at the types of plays that are being converted against the Bears on 3rd down, rush versus pass.
Of 59 conversions, 44 have come through the air, versus only 15 on the ground.
Other numbers that occur on 3rd downs:
TDs allowed: 8
QB sacks: 9
Turnovers: 6
The start of the 2009 season came with Head Coach Lovie Smith taking over the play-calling duties, and a new defensive line guru in Rod Marinelli charged with revamping the pass rush. And while some areas may have shown signs of improvement, getting off the field on 3rd down is a huge struggle.
Our defense is undoubtedly getting worn down, and we still face some good offenses left on our 2009 schedule. We'll see if these numbers get any better...
Disclaimer: While it was insignificant, there was a very small discretion between the three databases I pulled stats from. Please allow a +/- 0.5% margin of error.
0 recs |
23 comments
|
Comments
Big cushion --> easy conversions
It really frustrates me when our CBs give a 10 yard cushion on 3rd & 6. I’ve noticed us doing less of this the past few weeks (which is encouraging), but our pass rush is still too inconsistent (often non-existent for weeks at a time) to have much success on D.
I’ve been pleasantly suprised that Lovie has shown a willingness to adjust the D recently (not as many “mug” looks, CBs sometimes not giving 10 yard cushions, . . .); however, the D-line and the safeties just aren’t very good. Time to see if Gilbert and G. Adams are any good.
by MakeHalasProud on Nov 23, 2009 4:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Our rush defense is fine.
It’s the secondary that’s killing us.
by GouldisGold on Nov 23, 2009 4:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Well, really it's the turnovers that are killing us.
The Bears are actually 13th in the league in allowed yards/game. They could be lower down the rank, but the other team is getting solid enough field position that they don’t have to go very far to get more points than us.
"I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule."-Randal Graves
by KDoggers on Nov 23, 2009 4:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
To clarify-
8th in passing yards/game, 23rd in rushing yards per game.
"I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule."-Randal Graves
by KDoggers on Nov 23, 2009 4:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Our rush defense is fine.
You must not have been watching the same team I have this season.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
"F*** everybody outside of Halas Hall. BEARDOWN" - WavyGravy
by Spongie on Nov 23, 2009 10:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Games are Won & Lost on
Big Plays, much more so than on stats.
Last night the Bears defense looked like the Defense of 2005/2006.
Three sacks. Three fumbles caused (two recovered). One interception.
Very Good.
The offense: Three wide open receivers (Olsen, Hester & Knox). All could’ve/should’ve been TD’s.
They weren’t. They ended up just being three incompletions on the stat sheet.
Not blaming Cutler. But if he hits even one of those big plays the Bears probably win that game.
The Bears won the all important turnover battle last night (1-3). They just missed on a handful of big plays that were there for the taking.
by axthelm on Nov 23, 2009 5:03 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Last night the Bears defense looked like the Defense of 2005/2006.
No they didn’t. Yes they created turnovers but they in no way looked like the defense from 05/06. That team could stop the run, this team cannot.
Not blaming Cutler. But if he hits even one of those big plays the Bears probably win that game.
Who are you going to blame if not him? He threw the ball, and no you can’t say it was the recievers or the line.
Ditka Avenger and Original WCG Power Poster!!!!
Want to be a blood donor? Insult Chuck Norris.
by Ditkavsworld on Nov 24, 2009 8:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we should make Ron Turner the Defensive Coordinator, he has no trouble getting his squad off the field in 3 downs.
by BearFan611 on Nov 23, 2009 5:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Ba dum tish*

You are all gentlemen (and ladies) and good judges of cheap whiskey.
by Dane Noble on Nov 23, 2009 5:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
"F*** everybody outside of Halas Hall. BEARDOWN" - WavyGravy
by Spongie on Nov 23, 2009 10:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Ditto! Too Much Cushion!
OK, so the cover-2 is basically a deep zone where the safeties need to keep everything in front of them to prevent the big play from occurring. In theory this forces the offense to march down the field for a score (many offenses don’t have the discipline & patience to do this.) I also understand that you can get a less athletic “zone” safety for less $ in the latter rounds (the salary cap is always an issue). But why don’t we spend some $ & acquire some “cover” corners-CB’s who are athletic & tough enough to cover wide receivers by themselves. This frees-up the safeties to support elsewhere which makes your D so much better. Check out what Green Bay has done with the acquisitions of both Al Harris & Charles Woodson. If you acquire less athletic “zone” corners & combine them with less athletic “zone” safeties you’ve got nothing but a less athletic backfield. This will not get you in the play-off’s. Get some real corners!!!!!
by nosmo343 on Nov 23, 2009 5:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The error in your thinking...
….comes from the “Bears spending money” part.
Angelo seems to pride himself in those late-round picks that pan out. Which is perfectly fine.
If they pan out.
"I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule."-Randal Graves
by KDoggers on Nov 23, 2009 6:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, they pan out against the other late-round picks and never-been FAs that otherwise populate the squad. Lest anyone forget, Steltz was listed as our starting FS just before the season started.
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
"F*** everybody outside of Halas Hall. BEARDOWN" - WavyGravy
by Spongie on Nov 23, 2009 10:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's way beyond just the scheme
The Bears’ secondary wouldn’t be good in any other scheme either. For the record, its been repeatedly mentioned on this site that the Bears only play their base defense (cover-2) about 25% of the time.
"Those guys were the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked" - Homer defines the Bears '09 season in less than 12 words.
by propheteer on Nov 23, 2009 9:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
third down conversions
I’d be curious to see how the third down conversion percentages break out according to each team. As you say the numbers indicate that the Bears perform much better in the 2nd half, specifically the third quarter, however, I suspect this is the case for most if not all teams. If the percentages are comparable, then the point is moot with regard to this particular stat. It would be a wash.
"Chance favors the prepared mind." - Pasteur
by Maelvampyre on Nov 23, 2009 6:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
What I did not do
was make comparisons with other teams in the league. If we were among the better teams in the NFL, or only losing games because of something like 3rd down conversions allowed, then I might have looked at more of a comparison.
But honestly, we have many, many problems, and we realistically are not a good team… that’s why I just kept it as an “in-house” look.
You are all gentlemen (and ladies) and good judges of cheap whiskey.
by Dane Noble on Nov 23, 2009 6:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be more interested in seeing...
The past few years for the Bears on your point. For the past few years (I’d say without proof since 2005) this has been a problem for the Bears. It seems like the cover-2 is all about ‘soft’ coverage, and I just don’t see how this has helped the Bears in recent years.
Now it could be that I have selective memory and the sting that hurts worst hurts deepest. But my perception is that this has been going on for a few years. My perception is that we have, under the cover-2, allowed a lot of 3-and-long first downs for the past few years.
Can you dig up this data (because I’m lazy)? I’m willing to bet that this is a systemic problem, and then that does fall upon management.
Jake is right, we did have a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
by Chauncey Baker on Nov 23, 2009 8:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ok
I agree the Bears have a lot of problems, no doubt.
I have been one of those who have been commenting about the Bears coaching staff not being able to adapt to changing game situations, and/or making adjustments at the half so this was of special interest to me and until we can compare those stats to those of other teams then all we really have to go on is our perceptions when compared to teams we are losing to.
"Chance favors the prepared mind." - Pasteur
by Maelvampyre on Nov 23, 2009 9:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It usually takes
the coaching staff like 3 games before making adjustments. Meanwhile, other teams’ HCs are making them at halftime of every game.
"Those guys were the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked" - Homer defines the Bears '09 season in less than 12 words.
by propheteer on Nov 23, 2009 9:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'll see what I can pull up on other teams...
it won’t be a detailed look, but I’ll look tomorrow and see what I can find.
You are all gentlemen (and ladies) and good judges of cheap whiskey.
by Dane Noble on Nov 23, 2009 9:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
After looking at the eagles game and pretty much majority of our games played this year so far
The thing killing us the most in the 3rd down and 8+ scenarios is the fact that our linebackers are nowhere in sight for the entire play. seriously, take a look at the last game you saw or any game this year and look at 3rd and +8 plays on defense. If they do blitz the linebackers, they are getting picked up at the line. When they end up completing the pass in our soft coverage, look and see if you see any linebackers around the corners or safeties.
This is where Lach is being missed the most. When Lach dropped into coverage on 3rd down he just had a nose for where the ball was going to be thrown, it was truly uncanny. We don’t have that now and it shows on our long 3rd downs. Check it out next time you watch a game, the linebackers are invisible.
How do we correct this? Sadly, i don’t know if our linebackers can just “develop” a sixth sense for the ball, but if they keep getting picked up at the line during blitzes, why not drop em all back into coverage, and keep one just eyballing the rb for a screen.
What you guys think?
by Chitownproduct on Nov 24, 2009 4:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

by 

























